HappySlappy123 wrote: » Cheers Kiwi! Would I need to cover all injunctions or would I get away with cutting down a bit?
7.—(1) Any person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an indictable offence shall be liable to be indicted, tried and punished as a principal offender. (2) Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him or her to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without reasonable excuse any act with intent to impede his or her apprehension or prosecution shall be guilty of an offence. (3) If, upon the trial on indictment of an arrestable offence, it is proved that the offence charged, or some other offence of which the accused might on that charge be found guilty, was committed but it is not proved that the accused was guilty of it, the accused may be found guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of which it is proved that he or she is guilty in relation to the offence charged, or that other offence.
corkres1989 wrote: » I'd just do mareva injunctions and I'd add tracing to your list other than that that's all I'm doing.
sunshine and showers wrote: » I just can't wrap my head around Section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. I understand the concept of an accessory after the fact, it's just this one subsection that's getting me. If someone could break it down for me in plain English, I'd be much obliged!
Simplyliving04 wrote: » I'm open to correction here as I'm not doing criminal this time so its nearly six months since I looked at this but I think it just means that if x is up for robbery but is found not guilty, x could still be convicted for aiding and abetting robbery
sunshine and showers wrote: » That's what I thought it said, but how can you be guilty of aiding and abetting a robbery you didn't commit? That's the part I'm confused with.
kiwi33 wrote: » You are guilty because you didn't commit the robbery but you helped someone else to commit a robbery by either driving them to the scene or keep watch for them etc. knowing what they intended to do
sunshine and showers wrote: » No it's specifically you can be found not guilty of committing the arrestable offence, but guilty of being an accessory after the fact. I'm just not sure who you're meant to have been an accessory TO if you didn't do it.
kiwi33 wrote: » An accessory after the fact is someone who knows that a crime has occurred but nonetheless helps to conceal it. it can be known as obstructing justice or harboring a fugitive.
kiwi33 wrote: do they take legislation if it has a solicitors firm name or stamp on it. Work has the new companies act but they have put there name on it.
sunshine and showers wrote: » Thanks. I think it's just worded in a really convoluted way. So basically if you're found not guilty of a robbery, that doesn't preclude you from being found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to the robbery if you tried to impede the course of justice helping the actual perpetrator of the robbery?
Dublad2012 wrote: » In the most general terms, could someone please explain the difference between trespass to the person in tort and non fatal offences against person in criminal? Like why have tort based actions at all? Thanks
chunkylover4 wrote: » So people can recover compensation for being assaulted?
Tyler Durdenn wrote: » There are different standards of proof required for each. Criminal: Beyond reasonable doubt. Tort: Balance of probabilities. A criminal case may fail in reaching the requisite standard of proof, but a tort case from the same incident may be successful if it is proven on the balance of probabilities, and thus damages may be awarded.
hullaballoo wrote: » The easiest way to visualise aiding and abetting before/during/after the fact is the gruesome example of spousal murder. I'll use the boring H, W, A, B and C to describe the parties. W wants to murder H because he is a wealthy bar owner that serves as a popular truckers' stop as well as commuters and people going home for weekends etc. She is unsure if she can go through with it but talks to her friend, A, who convinces her to do it and helps to plan the murder. A is an accessory before the fact. W is petite and H is a large man who could easily overpower W. So, W enlists one of her lovers, B's, help to hold H down while she cuts his throat. B is an accessory during (and after - see below) the fact. W and B take the body out back and bury H's now lifeless and mostly bloodless (H's blood having been left behind at the scene of the crime) corpse under the shed floor. Unfortunately, W and B cannot scrub away the blood so they enlist the help of C who is a "forensic cleaner" and has the capacity to remove all evidence of blood from the scene. C is an accessory after the fact. (I should say that C could possibly escape liability, but in my above fiction, the Prosecution are able to show the C knew there had been a murder and this was the blood of the victim.) Rather annoyingly, while the Criminal Law Act 1997 created specific secondary offences, somewhat idiotically, the Act abolished the common law offence of "misprision of a felony" by abolishing the distinction between misdemeanour and felony. Misprision was where a person knew a felony had been committed but concealed or failed to report the felony to the relevant authorities. The offences under the 1997 Act are nowhere near as broad.
Fe1r wrote: » Has anyone any advice for constitutional? What are people covering? I've narrowed it down to 17 chapters but I'm really panicking I won't get it covered in time.
chunkylover4 wrote: » What are you leaving out?
Scarymary13 wrote: » I am finding it very hard to limit done contract. What topics are people focusing on?
